121. The principle of ne bis in idem is contemplated in Article 8(4) of the American Convention in the following terms: An accused person acquitted by a non-appealable judgment shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause 122. This principle is intended to protect the rights of individuals who have been tried for specific facts from being subjected to a new trial for the same cause. Unlike the formula used by other international human rights protection instruments (for example, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14(7), which refers to the same “crime”), the American Convention uses the expression "the same cause," which is a much broader term in favor of the accused or defendant.101 123. The Court has consistently held that among the elements that establish the situation covered by Article 8(4) of the Convention, is the holding of a first trial which ends in a non-appealable acquittal.102 The Court has also noted that the criminal proceeding is one complete process carried out in various stages,103 including the ordinary remedies filed against the judgment. 124. In this case, the judgment convicting Mr. Mohamed for the crime of manslaughter was issued in the second instance of criminal proceedings. That conviction overturned the acquittal that had been issued in the first instance in the same criminal proceeding. The conviction was not issued in a retrial after a non-appealable judgment that had taken on authority of res judicata, but rather it was issued in a stage of the same criminal proceeding initiated against Mr. Mohamed for the events of March 16, 1992.(supra para. 38). 125. As to the arguments of the representatives that Argentina has developed a protection “standard [...] that is more protective than that which would arise from a literal interpretation of the text of Article 8(4) of the Convention” on non bis in idem, and that this should be taken into account by this Court in interpreting the protection afforded by such a norm of the Convention, this Court points out that the representatives did not include in the body of evidence of this case the rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice to which they referred in their pleadings and motions brief (supra para. 77 and footnote 67). Even though the experts Maier and Binder addressed this issue in their expert opinions, from a doctrinal position or making reference to the rulings of the Supreme Court, it has not been proven before this Court, with the required certainty, that in Argentina the principle of ne bis in idem is legally protected and must be more broadly guaranteed than under the terms stated in the Convention. Therefore, the Court finds no grounds for considering the request of the representatives regarding the standard of interpretation of Article 29.b) of the Convention. 126. The Court reiterates that the principle ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 8(4) of the Convention, is based on the prohibition of a new trial on the same facts that have been the subject of the judgment under authority of res judicata. The Court finds that Mr. Mohamed was not subjected to two different trials or judicial proceedings for the same cause. 127. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the State did not violate Article 8(4) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed. 101 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 66. 102 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 137, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 202. 103 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 161, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 159. 35